Netflix Uses AI Effects For First Time To Cut Costs (bbc.com)
(Friday July 18, 2025 @05:50PM (msmash)
from the how-about-that dept.)
- Reference: 0178412152
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/25/07/18/1854203/netflix-uses-ai-effects-for-first-time-to-cut-costs
- Source link: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vr4rymlw9o
Netflix says it has [1]used visual effects created by generative AI in one of its original TV shows for the first time. From a report:
> The streaming giant's co-chief executive Ted Sarandos said AI, which produces videos and images based on prompts, was used to create a scene of a building collapsing in the Argentine science fiction show, The Eternaut. He said the technology allowed the production team to complete sequences faster and at a lower cost.
>
> The use of generative AI is controversial in the entertainment industry over concerns it creates content using others' work without their consent and fears that it will replace the work of humans. [...] Asked about Netflix's use of AI, Mr Sarandos said the technology has allowed productions with smaller budgets to use advanced visual effects.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vr4rymlw9o
> The streaming giant's co-chief executive Ted Sarandos said AI, which produces videos and images based on prompts, was used to create a scene of a building collapsing in the Argentine science fiction show, The Eternaut. He said the technology allowed the production team to complete sequences faster and at a lower cost.
>
> The use of generative AI is controversial in the entertainment industry over concerns it creates content using others' work without their consent and fears that it will replace the work of humans. [...] Asked about Netflix's use of AI, Mr Sarandos said the technology has allowed productions with smaller budgets to use advanced visual effects.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9vr4rymlw9o
Inevitabot (Score:1)
by Tablizer ( 95088 )
NuffsedGPT
Reminds me the Light & Magic documentary... (Score:1)
by Togamika ( 10460595 )
"You know, being a successful visual FX producer often times is someone who knows how to cheat... and also to spend the least amount of money." (Richard Edlund)
and fears that it will replace the work of humans (Score:2)
Computers replaced the model-makers and nobody gave a shit.
Get used to it.
Re: (Score:2)
> There is only one remedy for this problem which doesn't lead to wave after wave of this, and it is to separate the basic needs of the living from employment
In other words, there is no remedy for this "problem."
Perhaps the "problem" isn't a bug, but a feature. Nobody is as interested in my personal lifestyle and comforts, than me. If a basic living isn't motivation enough for me to do whatever is necessary to obtain that basic living standard, why should someone else work harder so that I don't have to? And if won't do whatever it takes to achieve that basic standard of living, why am I entitled to it?
Millenia ago, people literally had to scavenge for their own
Re: (Score:1)
> In other words, there is no remedy for this "problem."
Not as long as we keep sucking billionaire cock, no. It will never provide enough sustenance to live on.
> Perhaps the "problem" isn't a bug, but a feature. Nobody is as interested in my personal lifestyle and comforts, than me.
And you're not interested in anyone else's comfort, either.
> Today, we have much more advanced and fault-tolerant systems.
Systems which are under attack.
> But these have not removed the basic foundation of truth that, if you don't work, you don't eat.
Just the food thrown away is enough to eat. Keep defending that.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't enough money, from all the billionaires who ever lived, to keep everybody's needs satisfied, without people having to work.
> And you're not interested in anyone else's comfort, either.
You say this as if it's a problem! Why should I be motivated to work harder, so YOU can live more comfortably? Your personal standard of comfort, is all yours to maintain. Your discomfort, your standard of living, is not my problem, or anybody else's, but yours.
Now, if you are disabled or an invalid, then yes, it is absolutely society's responsibility to help such people. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
> You say this as if it's a problem!
It's the problem, not a problem. As long as you only care about you, and not about anyone else, there's no reason why anyone should care about you. In fact, it's actively harmful for them to waste time caring about you, because they're not going to get that care back.
Re: (Score:2)
You are turning my argument into a straw man. It's not that simple.
Just because *I* don't care about *your* standard of living, doesn't mean I care about no one's standard of living. There are people who need and deserve help. Able-bodied people should be expected to work for their own living. Those who truly need hep, we should help.
Re: (Score:2)
> You are turning my argument into a straw man.
You don't understand the import of your own argument.
> Just because *I* don't care about *your* standard of living, doesn't mean I care about no one's standard of living.
Nice solidarity there bro. Shame if something should have already happened to it.
Re: (Score:2)
The concept is called "Enlightened Self-Interest". [1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] This concept is a recognition that people will work hardest to care for themselves, but that taken to its extreme, is unhealthy for society. It's a pragmatic concept, rooted in realism. People do care about other people, but only to a point. An economic model that harnesses people's self-interest, while not throwing away altruism, is the most realistic model possible, that has the best overall results for the most people.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest
Re: (Score:2)
> The concept is called "Enlightened Self-Interest".
PR for selfishness.
> People do care about other people, but only to a point.
The point at which they might actually have to act like they care, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't disagree. Humans are by nature, at their very core, selfish. Any economic system that ignores this reality, is doomed to fail.
Re: (Score:2)
> Humans are by nature, at their very core, selfish. Any economic system that ignores this reality, is doomed to fail.
So is any economic system based around not only enabling but promoting selfishness. And here we are, watching it happen in realtime.
Re: fears that it will replace the work of humans (Score:4, Insightful)
>> There is only one remedy for this problem which doesn't lead to wave after wave of this, and it is to separate the basic needs of the living from employment
> In other words, there is no remedy for this "problem." Perhaps the "problem" isn't a bug, but a feature. Nobody is as interested in my personal lifestyle and comforts, than me. If a basic living isn't motivation enough for me to do whatever is necessary to obtain that basic living standard, why should someone else work harder so that I don't have to?
You are totally misunderstanding the problem.
Your implicit assumption here that it is possible for a person "to do whatever is necessary to obtain that basic living standard." But the question is: once AI becomes good enough that it can do every job cheaper than a human, how do humans survive?
You say "why should someone else work harder so that I don't have to?"-- but it's not another human that is working harder. It is a mechanism. And that mechanism is cheaper than you are.
And it's not that you don't "have" to. It's that work no longer exists for you to work at.
> ...
> But these have not removed the basic foundation of truth that, if you don't work, you don't eat.
if, as you say, the truth is "if you don't work, you don't eat", what happens when there is no work to be had?
Re: (Score:2)
> You say "why should someone else work harder so that I don't have to?"-- but it's not another human that is working harder. It is a mechanism. And that mechanism is cheaper than you are.
Thanks for getting it. This is what the Luddites were saying, and why I like to invoke them despite it making people mad because they've been gaslit over what their message was. It wasn't "smash all the things", it was "everyone should benefit from the things, and if not, there is no reason we should not smash them". They were people with nothing left to lose. Continuing automation will make that of virtually all of us, and certainly every one of us here. If we were important enough for it not to, we wouldn
Re: (Score:2)
> once AI becomes good enough that it can do every job cheaper than a human
This is a dystopian sci-fi fantasy that will never come to pass. There will always be jobs for humans. Throughout history, humans have automated the jobs they didn't want to do, and new jobs were created replacing them. AI is just a tool, an invention, it's not *actually* intelligent.
> if, as you say, the truth is "if you don't work, you don't eat", what happens when there is no work to be had?
This is a logical fallacy. It's like asking, "What if we were to build an immovable object that could stand up to an irresistible force?" It's a contradiction. There will *always* be work that machines can't do more cheaply tha
Re: (Score:2)
>> once AI becomes good enough that it can do every job cheaper than a human
> This is a dystopian sci-fi fantasy that will never come to pass. There will always be jobs for humans.
And your authority for making that pronouncement is?
Many things that have never previously happened in human history have happened.
> if, as you say, the truth is "if you don't work, you don't eat", what happens when there is no work to be had?
This is a logical fallacy. It's like asking, "What if we were to build an immovable object that could stand up to an irresistible force?" It's a contradiction.
You apparently don't know what a logical fallacy is. "In my opinion this won't happen" is not the definition of a logical fallacy.
You go on to say "don't even think about it even as a thought exercise."
> There will *always* be work that machines can't do more cheaply than humans. All automation ever invented, has limits.
Man will never fly.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, we can ask questions. But that's not the same as claiming that AI is about to end civilization as we know it.
> And your authority for making that pronouncement is?
> Many things that have never previously happened in human history have happened.
My authority is history. While AI has never happened before, inventions that replace human labor, has happened over and over and over. This is nothing unique to AI, that sets it apart from past inventions, when it comes to the impact on human labor. That's not to say that it's different at all, just not different in an economic sense.
Countless inventions throughout history, replaced some human
What a mean-spirited and wrong headed post (Score:1)
I'm assuming it's cope. We all know the AI apocalypse is coming for our jobs and our livelihoods and in turn all of our property as we mortgage it off to survive but well, nobody has a solution that anyone is willing to accept. The idea of giving people food and shelter without inflicting pain is just not something we as a species are capable of. At least not at the moment.
To address the specific points in this post the reason CGI took over is because it's cheaper, and the reason it's cheaper is that t
Re: (Score:3)
You're a lot dumber than I thought. Didn't think I'd see you cheerleading for more of the same oppressive bullshit, but here you are.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem CG artists have is that not everyone's job is being replaced by AI (LLMs), it's just their job and some others that are being replaced by AI. In your terms, CG artists still need the labor of others to fulfil their "basic needs of the living" (aka have water and electricity flowing in their apartment and food on their table), but nobody needs their labor anymore. It's the same shock the luddites suffered when textile machinery was invented.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW the Luddites were wrong, companies shouldn't have to engage in pessimisation (aka the use of clearly inferior processes on purpose) just to offer someone employment.
Re: (Score:2)
> BTW the Luddites were wrong, companies shouldn't have to engage in pessimisation (aka the use of clearly inferior processes on purpose) just to offer someone employment.
BTW you're wrong, that was not their position.
Re: (Score:2)
Then what on Earth was their position?
Re: (Score:2)
> Then what on Earth was their position?
The position of the Luddites was that the gains from increases in productivity from automation should not accrue solely to the already wealthy, but should also benefit the working class. Rather than only making the rich richer, they should enable us to work less and benefit more.
Fast forward to today. As worker productivity has increased, the workers' share of the profit has decreased, and this has enabled the owning class to dominate every aspect most people's existence by controlling government through ca
Re: (Score:2)
No they didn't. Prop makers, set designers, set builders, etc., are still plentiful and employed in the creative arts.
It was thought that CGI would replace everything, but many still use the traditions, using CGI when it's basically something that's impossible to do physically.
CGI has replaced some jobs - matte painting, for example, is no longer done using panes of glass mounted in front of the camera, that stuff is digitally edited out and replaced. The matte painters simply updated their tools to involve
Re: (Score:2)
We do know because "AI" tools have been used for a long while. They weren't LLMs, but rather [1]other kinds of guessing tools. [espressive.com] There are a bunch of them regularly used in CG. That's why I scoff at the idea that this is a new problem, as it certainly is not, and this industry is responsible in large part for promoting the use of these tools.
I don't mock the actual problem, though. It's a real problem, it is just the same problem as every other automation problem. The scope has been creeping since the original e
[1] https://www.espressive.com/resources/blog/generative-ai-vs-llm-what-came-first
Re: (Score:2)
CGI replaced people doing special effects. And no, special effects weren't always CGI.